On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > And yes, we used to have explicit unplugging (a long long long time ago),
> > and IT SUCKED. People would forget, but even more importantly, people would
> > do it even when not
>
> I don't see what the problem is. Locks also suck if you forget to unlock
> them.
Locks are simple, and in fact are _made_ simple on purpose. We try very
hard to unlock in the same function that we lock, for example. Because if
we don't, bugs happen.
That's simply not _practical_ for IO. Think about it. Quite often, the
waiting is done somewhere else than the actual submission.
> > needed because they didn't have a good place to do it because the waiter was
> > in a totally different path.
>
> Example?
Pretty much all of them.
Where do you wait for IO?
Would you perhaps say "wait_on_page()"?
In other words, we really _do_ exactly what you think we should do.
> I don't know why you think this way of doing plugging is fundamentally
> right and anything else must be wrong... it is always heuristic, isn't
> it?
A _particular_ way of doing plugging is not "fundamentally right". I'm
perfectly happy with chaning the place we unplug, if people want that.
We've done it several times.
But plugging as a _concept_ is definitely fundamentally right, exactly
because it allows us to have the notion of "plug + n*<random submit by
different paths> + unplug".
And you were not suggesting moving unplugging around. You were suggesting
removing the feature. Which is when I said "no f*cking way!".
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
